The result was no consensus. Having read the arguments below and looked at the sources myself, I would agree that the sources currently given in the article don't do much to demonstrate why she is notable. However, DGG and others do make a good point that the position she holds, and the wording of some of the sources, do imply that she could be considered a leading member of her field. Also considering that she holds a high position within an international organization relating to her field, there ought to be some sources out there somewhere to improve this article. Arguing about it here doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere, so hopefully some concentrated work on the article will be enough to keep it around. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No material secondary sources on the subject of this article. News hits are limited to the most local variety of coverage. Full professors are often, but not automatically, notable. Notable professors would have considerably more coverage.
If there are reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, please provide. Note that this Wikipedia article as been tagged for lacking sources for nearly four months. Bongomatic 10:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The University of Iowa hires the best music faculty it can find. Wikipedia editors write neutral encyclopedia articles. Let's keep the two functions separate. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea of "notability" serves only as a proxy for this fundamental question, hence Wikipedia's definition of notability as the existence of significant, independent coverage. Your conception of notability as "importance within the field" is interesting but foreign to Wikipedia's actual deletion policy and to Wikipedia:Notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Needs third party sources establishing notability."--Bobak
"The judgment can only be made by finding and evaluating independent sources about her."--Me
Yes, sources would be helpful. :)
(Right now, the article seems to be sourced only to her university webpage, which presents problems of neutrality.) 160.39.213.152 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]